11863451 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2014)

Ex Parte Krueger

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 30, 2014

11863451 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte KEVIN D. KRUEGER ____________________ Appeal 2011-013697 Application 11/863,451 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, JOHN C. KERINS, and JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-013697 Application 11/863,451 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Kevin D. Krueger (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. The Claimed Subject Matter Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A method for configuring a control or monitoring device, comprising: receiving a user web page from the device on a configuration computer; receiving a user selection of data in the web page on the configuration computer; receiving properties of objects enumerated in the device based upon the selection; and copying the selected data from the web page to a temporary memory space on the configuration computer, selected data corresponding to separate properties of the objects being separated by delimiters in the copied data. Evidence The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal: Dietz Chen US 2004/0119727 A1 US 2006/0156221 A1 Jun. 24, 2004 Jul. 13, 2006 Rejections Claims 1-8 and 14-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen and Dietz. Appeal 2011-013697 Application 11/863,451 3 Claims 9-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Chen. OPINION Claims 1 and 9 are directed to a method for configuring a control or monitoring device. Claim 1 requires steps of receiving a user selection of data in a web page on a configuration computer and receiving “properties of objects enumerated in the device based upon the selection.” Clms. App’x (emphasis added). Claim 9 requires a step of serving from the device to a configuration computer “code causing a user selection of objects from the web page [itself served from the device to the configuration computer] to be enumerated on the configuration computer to permit delimiting of separate properties of the selected objects.” Id. (emphasis added). Claim 14 is directed to a system for configuring a control or monitoring device comprising, in relevant part, code located on the monitoring device “causing the monitoring device to enumerate properties of objects on the device.” Id. (emphasis added). Both of the Examiner’s rejections are premised in pertinent part on the Examiner’s finding that Chen discloses these features of claims 1, 9, and 14. Ans. 4-5, 6-7, 9. Specifically, the Examiner finds that the highlighted sections selected by the user “are objects on a page. The Table Analysis Program (see ¶0033 and item 120) analyzes these highlighted objects selected by the user and their properties are specified at the configuration device (see figs.4-5 and ¶0034, ¶0035.” Ans. 12, 14. Therefore, according to the Examiner, “the properties of the objects have been enumerated based on the user selection of the data and/or HTML.” Id. Appeal 2011-013697 Application 11/863,451 4 Appellant takes issue with the Examiner’s reading of the claimed “objects” on the highlighted areas selected by the user. App. Br. 6, 7-8, 9- 10; Reply Br. 2, 4. Appellant contends that Chen does not characterize the highlighted areas as “objects” and that “[t]he only ‘objects’ disclosed in Chen are the actual controls used to perform the functions of converting the data from a table to a spreadsheet.” App. Br. 6, 8. According to Appellant, Chen clearly distinguishes between objects that perform the conversion of the data from a table to a spreadsheet and the actual data converted from the table to the spreadsheet. App. Br. 10. Appellant asserts that the ordinary and customary meaning of the term “objects” is “independent executable pieces of software.” App. Br. 5 (citing Spec., para. [0022]). Appellant’s argument is convincing. Appellant’s Specification discloses that “examples of device objects may include software pushbuttons, timers, gauges, . . . and applications.” Para. [0016]. The Specification also alludes to “programming of the device objects” and “device objects executed upon interaction with the HMI by reference to the screen views (e.g., pressing a button, touching a location of a screen, and the like).” Para. [0019]. All of these disclosures suggest that the term “objects” is used in Appellant’s application in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning asserted by Appellant, namely, “independent executable pieces of software.” The Examiner does not specifically challenge Appellant’s asserted construction of “objects” nor proffer a different definition for this terminology. Thus, on the basis of the record before us, we accept Appellant’s asserted construction. Appeal 2011-013697 Application 11/863,451 5 The Examiner does not explain adequately how the data in the highlighted table of Chen constitute “objects” as construed in the manner asserted by Appellant. Consequently, the Examiner fails to establish a prima facie case that Chen anticipates the subject matter of claim 9 and its dependent claims 10-13, and that Chen and Dietz render obvious the subject matter of claims 1-8 and 14-22.1 DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-22 is reversed. REVERSED mls 1 The Examiner relies on Dietz for its teaching of copying selected data from a web page into a temporary memory space, and not for any teaching directed to enumeration of properties of objects on a device.